RAW converter for 90D RAWs!!!

[malfoypotter]

Hi everyone,

I got my hands on the shiny new camera and am waiting for my standard RAW-converter (Capture One) to integrate the file format. Aside from the Canon-solution (which is just a pain to work with and gets mediocre results imho) are there any other ways to work with the files in the meantime?

Thanks in advance!

[kvbarkley]

You might see if the Adobe DNG converter will handle the 90D.

[ebiggs1]

 Lightroom is always faster to support new cameras Raw files than Capture One.  It is cheaper to rent and the industry standard. Nothing really wrong with Capture One except it isn't LR.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@malfoypotter wrote:

Hi everyone,

I got my hands on the shiny new camera and am waiting for my standard RAW-converter (Capture One) to integrate the file format. Aside from the Canon-solution (which is just a pain to work with and gets mediocre results imho) are there any other ways to work with the files in the meantime?

Thanks in advance!

---

FWIW, I believe you're the first person I've encountered who thinks that the RAW converter in DPP (Canon's photo editor) gives mediocre results. Most people who have expressed an opinion in this forum, including those who weren't particularly impressed with DPP's user interface and overall capability, think it works pretty well.

[ebiggs1]

"...think it works pretty well."

You are correct, sir.   It's the "pretty well" that's the problem. If there was no LR or PS or ACR, DPP4 would be OK. However, there is.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"...think it works pretty well."

You are correct, sir.   It's the "pretty well" that's the problem. If there was no LR or PS or ACR, DPP4 would be OK. However, there is.

---

Both LR (cataloguing) and PS (layers, more elaborate image manipulation) have potentially useful features that DPP lacks. However, I don't believe that a better converter for Canon RAW files is one of those features.

In any case, the editor that the OP was comparing to DPP was neither LR nor PS.

[ebiggs1]

" I don't believe that a better converter for Canon RAW files is one of those features."

Robert it depends on what the word "better" means.  Canon is the only one that totally understands how their Raw files work.  So, is that 'better'? The industry and me choose and prefer ACR (LR,PS) for Raw conversion. So, is that better?

"In any case, the editor that the OP was comparing to DPP was neither LR nor PS."

True but that doesn't or shouldn't prevent a reply of what editor is best.  Perhaps the OP was unaware of LR/PS abilities or that they are less expensive and work 'better'.

[Waddizzle]

"...think it works pretty well."

You are correct, sir. It's the "pretty well" that's the problem. If there was no LR or PS or ACR, DPP4 would be OK. However, there is.


The only reason I purchased LR was for third party lens correction.